Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Chaye Sarah

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

R' Frand's first vort related to the timing of Sarah's death. Rashi on the first pasuk of the Parsha quotes a famous Medrash which states that the Satan told Sarah about the Akeidah and she died. R' Frand mentioned a new Sefer called Nahar Shalom by R' Reuven Feinstein which quotes R' Ya'akov Kaminetsky as saying that a person could have thought that if Avraham had not brought Yitzchak on the altar, Sarah would not have died. This is heretical - Hashem has determined how long a person will live.

R' Feinstein adds that it is important for people to know that the act that a person took (or did not take) is not the reason that someone else died. There are often recriminations when someone who cared for an older person took a vacation and the elderly person died while being cared for another. To think that if you did not go away, the person would not have died is Kefirah.

R' Frand mentioned a story which he had told several years ago in the 2018 Teshuva Derasha. The story can be found in a sefer by Esther Stern about R' Michel Feinstein whose daughter was having an asthma attack. They looked high and low for the child's nebulizer but could not find one and the child died before the ambulance could get her to the hospital. In preparing for the funeral they found 3 nebulizers under the child's bed and were inconsolable. How could they have missed it? R' Yaakov Galinski, the maggid of Yerushalayim came to be menachem avel. He reminded him of what they had learned together in the Lamzer Yeshiva - a person is required to do hishtadlus about the future. But after something has transpired a person should not feel remorse about the past. And to say what if I had done this or this (what he called coulda, shoulda, wouda) is heresy. For whatever His reason is, Hashem said that it was time for that girl to die and sometimes Hashem gives people the sechel to make the wrong decision. This gave R' Michel Feinstein solace.

R' Frand a second vort which began with the observation that there is no Hebrew word for ambivalence. He quoted R' Jonathan Sacks who said that while there is no word for ambivalence, but there is a note - the Shalsheles. This note is an indicia of ambivalence. The first time we see it is in Bereishis 19:16 where the Torah writes about Lot - וַֽיִּתְמַהְמָ֓הּ. He was on the fence, he wanted to stay in Sodom and be a Judge there and contribute to society. At the same time, the angels were telling him that it was time to go as the city would be destroyed.

The second time we see it is in this week's Parsha in Bereishis 24:12 where the Torah says about Eliezer - וַיֹּאמַ֓ר. He was davening to Hashem to help him fulfil his mission in finding a mate for Yitzchak, but at the same time, he was hoping that his daughter could be the wife of Yitzchak. He was torn between being the loyal servant and wanting his daughter to be the wife of Yitzchak.

The final time in Sefer Bereishis involves Yosef who is being tempted by the wife of Potiphar. The Torah states in Bereishis 39:8 - וַיְמָאֵ֓ן. Yosef was all alone and without any support system and here was a beautiful woman who desired him. He could give in to his desire, but in so doing he would give up his standing in his family and the Jewish future. The Medrash says that Ya'akov appeared to him and said - if you do this, you won't be on the Choshen. This is ambivalence.

R' Frand said that R' Sacks closed the vort by observing that the Jews of pre-WWII Europe had the same ambivalence. They saw how things were developing and were on the fence about whether they should leave. Those who did leave were saved and many of those who stayed were killed.

R' Frand said that if you look at what is going on now in the US and what the Democrats are saying they would like to do to the State of Israel, you can only hope that we will not need to make the same choice.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Vayera

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

R' Frand began his vort by referring to Avraham being told to leave his homeland in the beginning of Parashas Lecha Lecha. R' Frand quoted the Rishonim who say that even an Avraham needs to be concerned about being influenced by negative surroundings. 

R' Frand then applied this to two incidents in this week's parsha. When the angels visit Avraham the Torah states in Bereishis 18:8 - וַיִּקַּ֨ח חֶמְאָ֜ה וְחָלָ֗ב וּבֶן־הַבָּקָר֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֔ה וַיִּתֵּ֖ן לִפְנֵיהֶ֑ם וְהֽוּא־עֹמֵ֧ד עֲלֵיהֶ֛ם תַּ֥חַת הָעֵ֖ץ וַיֹּאכֵֽלוּ. Rashi explains that the angels did not actually eat, it only appeared as if they ate.

Later in the parsha, the angels visit Lot in Sodom. Again they are given food and the Torah writes in Bereishis 19:3  וַיַּ֤עַשׂ לָהֶם֙ מִשְׁתֶּ֔ה וּמַצּ֥וֹת אָפָ֖ה וַיֹּאכֵֽלוּ. This time Rashi does not write that they only appeared to eat. R' Frand quoted the Sefer Pardes Yosef who cites the Gaon M'Lutsk and it is also hinted in the Zohar, that the angels ate. How did they eat? They sunk from the level they were on when they visited Avraham. This sinking was because they were in Sodom which was a truly toxic environment. We thus see that even angels can be influenced by their surroundings.

R' Frand noted that we see that the angels had sinned as the Torah writes in Bereishis 19:3 that the angels told Lot - כִּֽי־מַשְׁחִתִ֣ים אֲנַ֔חְנוּ אֶת־הַמָּק֖וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה. Later in Bereishis 19:22, the angel tells Lot מַהֵר֙ הִמָּלֵ֣ט שָׁ֔מָּה כִּ֣י לֹ֤א אוּכַל֙ לַעֲשׂ֣וֹת דָּבָ֔ר עַד־בֹּאֲךָ֖ שָׁ֑מָּה - that he could not do anything until Lot left. Rashi comments that this was a punishment because the angels had previously said כִּֽי־מַשְׁחִתִ֣ים אֲנַ֔חְנוּ - that we (and not Hashem) will be destroying Sodom. 

R' Frand quoted from Yechezkel wherein the Targum says that the sin of Sodom was Gaavah - people were haughty. This impacted on the angels, as the Rabbeinu BeChaye says that angels don't have a Yezter Harah, but they do stray as they can be influenced.

R' Frand also noted one other example of the angels falling on a spiritual level. The Torah writes in Bereishis 19:16 - וַיַּחֲזִ֨יקוּ הָאֲנָשִׁ֜ים בְּיָד֣וֹ וּבְיַד־אִשְׁתּ֗וֹ וּבְיַד֙ שְׁתֵּ֣י בְנֹתָ֔יו. Why were the angels holding the hands of Lot's wife and his daughters? This was not to save their lives as the angels could have saved them without making physical contact! R' Frand answered that the hallmarks of Sodom were haughtiness and immorality and it impacted the angels. R' Frand quoted R' Yitzchak Mirsky in Higyonei Halacha that the angels slipped because they were in an environment of Gaavah and Zenus. And Gaavah leads a person to become less careful and more likely to stray and be unfaithful.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Lech Lecha

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

R' Frand began his vort by discussing Lot's separation from Avraham as mentioned in Bereishis 13:1-12. The Torah states in Bereishis 13:11 וַיִּסַּ֥ע ל֖וֹט מִקֶּ֑דֶם. Rashi explains that Lot did not travel in a direction, he wanted to separate from Hashem who was there from the beginning - מִקֶּ֑דֶם. Lot said that he did not want anything to do with Avraham and Hashem.

R' Frand asked - why did the Medrash interpret this pasuk is such a non-literal term? R' Frand quoted R' Matisyahu Solomon who in turn cited R' Shneur Kotler to explain the Medrash's view of the pasuk. He began by quoting a pasuk in Ekev (Devarim 11:10) which states כִּ֣י הָאָ֗רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֨ר אַתָּ֤ה בָא־שָׁ֙מָּה֙ לְרִשְׁתָּ֔הּ לֹ֣א כְאֶ֤רֶץ מִצְרַ֙יִם֙ הִ֔וא אֲשֶׁ֥ר יְצָאתֶ֖ם מִשָּׁ֑ם אֲשֶׁ֤ר תִּזְרַע֙ אֶֽת־זַרְעֲךָ֔ וְהִשְׁקִ֥יתָ בְרַגְלְךָ֖ כְּגַ֥ן הַיָּרָֽק. Moshe tells the Jews that the Land of Israel is not like Egypt which you left as in Egypt you don't need to worry about irrigation. In Egypt, the Nile overflows and waters the fields. Instead, וְהָאָ֗רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֨ר אַתֶּ֜ם עֹבְרִ֥ים שָׁ֙מָּה֙ לְרִשְׁתָּ֔הּ אֶ֥רֶץ הָרִ֖ים וּבְקָעֹ֑ת לִמְטַ֥ר הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם תִּשְׁתֶּה־מָּֽיִם - the land depends on rain to irrigate the fields.

R' Kotler asks - how is this praiseworthy for the Land of Israel? If you are trying to sell the land, why say that watering was easy in Egypt and that now you need to depend on rain? He answers that the pitch was that the Jews will need to rely on Hashem for rain and will daven to Him and develop a relationship. In Egypt there was no dependence on Hashem or relationship with Him. 

When Lot sees that the land of Sodom is כִּ֥י כֻלָּ֖הּ מַשְׁקֶ֑ה (Bereishis 13:10) he thinks that he will have it easy and he wont need to rely on Hashem for water - just like Egypt. He does not want a relationship with Hashem and this is his way out. After all, Lot was very much into his money and he wanted an easy luscious life.

R' Frand made reference to the pasuk in Bereishis 14:12 when Lot was captured. The Pasuk states - וַיִּקְח֨וּ אֶת־ל֧וֹט וְאֶת־רְכֻשׁ֛וֹ בֶּן־אֲחִ֥י אַבְרָ֖ם וַיֵּלֵ֑כוּ וְה֥וּא יֹשֵׁ֖ב בִּסְדֹֽם. The structure of the Pasuk is odd, since it states Lot, his possessions and only afterwards his relation to Avraham. You would think that it would say that they took Lot the nephew of Avraham and his possessions, but here they come between Lot & Avraham. R' Schwalb explains that this is because Lot's possessions were central to him and defined him.

R' Frand tied this to the prohibition on interest. He asked - why is it that if someone needs money, you cannot lend it to him on interest, but lower than the bank rate? If someone needs a mortgage now, the rate is above 7%. He would be thrilled to borrow from his friend at half the rate, so why can't they enter the transaction? R' Frand quoted the Klei Yakar who explains that a farmer relies on Hashem as there are many challenges to growing produce. Businessmen have similar challenges as they may order stock based on a belief that something will be a hot selling item, but by the time that it arrives, there may be no consumer interest.

Lending with interest, provided the loan is secured, takes Hashem out of the equation. A person does not need Hashem or depend on him if the money is coming in through interest. Thus Hashem banned interest so that he can feel a connection with Hashem.

R' Frand said a second vort related to Avraham's request to Hashem in Bereishis 15:2 - מַה־תִּתֶּן־לִ֔י וְאָנֹכִ֖י הוֹלֵ֣ךְ עֲרִירִ֑י וּבֶן־מֶ֣שֶׁק בֵּיתִ֔י ה֖וּא דַּמֶּ֥שֶׂק אֱלִיעֶֽזֶר. Avraham says he has no children - he has a trusted servant, but no one else. R' Frand noted that the Gemara in Yoma states that Eliezer was a Talmid Muvak of Avraham and he delivered Avraham's Torah to everyone. You could not want a better Talmid as he would perpetuate Avraham's Torah and ensure his legacy. But why should Avraham need anything else?

R' Frand answered by quoting the Rabbeinu Bchaye who cites to the pasuk in Bereishis 15:5 - וַיּוֹצֵ֨א אֹת֜וֹ הַח֗וּצָה וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ הַבֶּט־נָ֣א הַשָּׁמַ֗יְמָה וּסְפֹר֙ הַכּ֣וֹכָבִ֔ים אִם־תּוּכַ֖ל לִסְפֹּ֣ר אֹתָ֑ם וַיֹּ֣אמֶר ל֔וֹ כֹּ֥ה יִהְיֶ֖ה זַרְעֶֽךָ. Hashem was telling Avraham - the stars are multifaceted and no star is like another. Avraham wanted children, not clones. And Hashem told him - look at the stars - the are like the children you will have. Each one will be different with multiple strengths and diversity.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Noach

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

In Bereishis 6:13, the Torah states קֵ֤ץ כׇּל־בָּשָׂר֙ בָּ֣א לְפָנַ֔י כִּֽי־מָלְאָ֥ה הָאָ֛רֶץ חָמָ֖ס מִפְּנֵיהֶ֑ם. In Bereishis Rabbah, the Medrash states that חָמָֽס is theft of less than a Perutah. The people of this generation would see a person with a basket of lupines [R' Frand quipped that he would not know what a lupine was if it hit him in the face]. A person would take a lupine which was worth less than a perutah. The next person would take as well. And then eventually he would have none left...and he cannot pursue remedies because each lupine was worth less than a perutah and the court would not hear that case.

R' Frand asked - what is worse - stealing someone's car or taking something worth less than a perutah? You would say a car, so why is this a reason that the flood came? And why is the flood the Middah K'Neged Middah punishment?

R' Frand quoted a sefer which cited R' Moshe Amiel who states that there are three words for theft - Geneiva, Gezel and Chamas. Chazal teach that Geneiva is worse than Gezel, since he steals at night and is worried about man and not Hashem. The Gazlan doesn't care about man or Hashem. But why is Chamas worse than the other two? The Ganav thinks he can fake out man, the Gazlan doesn't care about man or Hashem. But the person who commits Chamas thinks he is not doing anything wrong and that is the worst case. We ask for forgiveness on Yom Kippur because we know we have done wrong, but this person thinks that he has not sinned.

He then explains why the flood was Middah K'Neged Middah. The person who takes one lupine has stolen less than a Perutah and Beis Din does not care about it. But it adds up until the person has nothing left. Rain is the same way, a drop of rain is nothing, but a drop followed by another drop by another drop adds up and becomes a flood.

R' Frand then quoted R' Mirski, who notes that on a Biblical level, money can effect a transaction, but D'Rabbanan it does not. Why? Because they were concerned that if money would effect the transaction and the buyer did not take physical possession, if a fire would threaten the item, the seller would not have an incentive to save the object because it was already the buyer's property. R' Frand then connected this to the concept of Mi Sheparah. If someone backs out of a transaction, the Gemara states that he can receive a Mi Sheparah - which is a legitimate curse in Chazal. The language of the Mi Sheparah in the Yerushalmi (unlike the Bavli) is that Hashem will punish you like he did to the generation of the flood. Why is the language - because although Beis Din can't punish you for backing out, Hashem can - much like he did to the generation of the flood.

R' Frand said a second vort related to Noach being 500 years old when he had his children. Rashi notes that prior generations had their children at 100 but Noach at 500. Why? Because if they were born when Noach was older and they turned out to be evil, they would need to die in the flood. And if they were good, Noach would need to build many additional arks for his children's families. Rashi further explains that at the time of the flood, punishment from Heaven was not meted out prior to a person turning 100 years old, so since Noach's sons were less than that at the time of the flood there was no concern.

R' Frand quoted R' Chaim Shmuelevitz who asks - what was the problem that the children might be good and Noach would need to build additional arks? He did not need to build them at all, he could have just hired someone else! Why was this a concern? 

R' Chaim answered that the ark was not physically able to withstand the flood and the torrent of boiling water. It was only able to do so because Noach was Moser Nefesh in order to build it - to deal with all the scoffers who ridiculed him for years and that imbued the ark with the ability to withstand the flood. If someone else had built an additional ark, it would not have survived the flood. 

R' Frand gave multiple examples of this concept - Shmuel had a garment that grew with him. How did this happen? Because Chana had such incredible Tefillos that it imbued the garment. He also noted that the Beis Hamikdash was built on the site where Avraham built the Akeidah...because Avraham was Moser Nefesh.

R' Frand noted the same in more recent generations. He discussed how Lakewood Yeshiva (BMG) was started with only a few students from Kletzk and now has 10,000 students. Similarly Ner Israel was started with only four students and it became what it is today. Why because they were built with Mesiras Nefesh and an ark could not have survived the flood if it was built by Bob's Boat Builders. 

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Bereishis

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

R' Frand began by noting that the eating from the Etz HaDa'as was a seminal moment in human history and the world changed as a result. R' Frand briefly summarized the punishment of the snake (Bereishis 3:14-15) the punishment for Chava (3:16) and the punishment for Adam (3:17-19). R' Frand noted that at the end of the punishment, Adam is told that he will die, stating כִּֽי־עָפָ֣ר אַ֔תָּה וְאֶל־עָפָ֖ר תָּשֽׁוּב. 

Immediately thereafter, Adam gives his wife a new name as the Torah states in Bereishis 3:20 וַיִּקְרָ֧א הָֽאָדָ֛ם שֵׁ֥ם אִשְׁתּ֖וֹ חַוָּ֑ה כִּ֛י הִ֥וא הָֽיְתָ֖ה אֵ֥ם כׇּל־חָֽי. But why does Adam choose this moment to give his wife a new name?

R' Frand quoted R' Jonathan Sacks who theorized that when Adam was told that he was going to die, it hit him like a ton of bricks. Prior to this point, he thought that his legacy would be himself, since he was going to live forever. But now, he is no longer immortal and he starts wondering about his legacy and what he will leave behind. Adam realized that what he would leave behind is his children as they carry your DNA, your morals and your values. But to have children, I need a wife and I just heard Hashem say that you (Chava) will enable me to have children. In so doing, you - Chava will help me achieve immortality. Previously she was just a help mate, but now she is a fundamental partner as through her, I will have immortality. This is why she called חַוָּ֑ה-- כִּ֛י הִ֥וא הָֽיְתָ֖ה אֵ֥ם כׇּל־חָֽי - she will be the mother of all the children.

R' Frand gave a second reason for the change of name at this point. It might have been logical to call her death, since she brought death into the world. I could call her death and this is how she will be remembered. But I can call her Chava and view the positive. People are not totally bad or totally good and here Adam is teaching the fundamental lesson - don't look at her as death as because of her there will be life for every person.

R' Frand closed this vort with a story about R Lazer Silver who served as a chaplain in the US Army after WWII. He was successful in organizing a room in a DP camp where people could make a minyan. One day they were short one man for the minyan and R' Silver sent someone out to ask a man who was outside to join them. The messenger returned and said that the man had refused and said that he does not want to see a siddur, or a shul or another frum Jew. R' Silver then went out and asked personally and received the same response. He asked - why do you feel that way? The man responded  that when he was in the camps, there was a frum Jew who had a siddur which he used to daven before the men went out to work every day. But the man did not only use the siddur, he "rented" it out to others in exchange for half their daily ration of bread. The man was disgusted by this and did not want to see another siddur, or shul or frum Jew.

When the man had finished explaining himself, R' Silver said to him - but why don't you look at all the Jews who were willing to give up half their meager rations just so that they could daven with a siddur. The man accepted this and joined them.

[When R' Frand told this story previously, he told a related story. Thirty years later, a man spoke at a conference of major Jewish leaders and told that story. He said that he was the man who had refused to join the minyan before speaking to R' Laizer Silver. His name is Simon Wiesenthal].

R' Frand said a second vort related to Kayin and Hevel. The Torah states in Bereishis 4:8 וַיֹּ֥אמֶר קַ֖יִן אֶל־הֶ֣בֶל אָחִ֑יו וַֽיְהִי֙ בִּהְיוֹתָ֣ם בַּשָּׂדֶ֔ה וַיָּ֥קׇם קַ֛יִן אֶל־הֶ֥בֶל אָחִ֖יו וַיַּהַרְגֵֽהוּ׃. The Torah does not tell us what Kayin says to Hevel before he killed him, but there are Medrashim which say that they argued over where the Bais HaMikdash would be built, or they argued over marriage or the division of property.

But why does the Torah not give the reason for the argument explicitly? R' Frand quoted R' Bukspan from Florida who explains that it does not matter what the fight was about. A person can get into a fight and not speak with a sibling for 40 years and no one remembers what the source of the argument was about. What is important is that there was a fight, not what they were fighting over.

R' Frand then observed that Kayin's punishment was נָ֥ע וָנָ֖ד תִּֽהְיֶ֥ה בָאָֽרֶץ (Bereishis 4:12). But how does this fit the crime? How is it Middah K'Neged Middah? R' Frand that people get into arguments because they stand their ground and will not give in to the other person. I am right and you are wrong, its my way or the highway and the person stands on principle. If a person does not know how to bend or move, the punishment is that you will learn how to move.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Rabbi Frand's Teshuva Derasha 5787/2026 - Part I

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand in his annual Teshuva Derasha which was broadcast live from Baltimore on the TCN network this evening. I have attempted to summarize the first part of the derasha in this post and iyh will do an additional post over the weekend. This was a very powerful derasha and my attempt to summarize should not be viewed as an exact transcript as it is based on my notes. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

R' Frand began the derasha by noting that Yom Kippur is unlike any other day on the Jewish calendar as it is the sole fast day mentioned in the Torah. Our basic physical comforts are mandated by the Torah, including the shoes we wear and we will spend the day in shul. R' Frand quoted a pasuk in Tehillim 139:16 which has a different meaning when read and written. The pasuk states  יָמִ֥ים יֻצָּ֑רוּ (ולא) [וְל֖וֹ] אֶחָ֣ד בָּהֶֽם. R' Frand translated this as Hashem has created the days and one of them is unto Him - there is a day Hashem has singled out to be different and special to Him. R' Frand quoted R' Yehoshua in Medrash Tanchuma which states that this is Yom Kippur - it belongs to Him. But if read as the way that it is written - there is a day that is different from all other days. This is Yom Kippur, the day that the Kohain Gadol goes into the Kodesh Kodashim - a place that even Moshe Rabbeinu could not enter. R' Frand said l'havdil - its a clean room, a room of absolute purity.

R' Frand also quoted Chazal that the location is Lifnai V'Lifnim - the innermost of the innermost. The vast majority of people will not enter this location and even the vast majority of Kohanim will not enter. But R' Emanuel Bernstein suggests that every single person possesses an internal Kodesh Kodashim because each person has a pure untainted soul which has a will to solely serve Hashem. We reference this in the prayer said in the morning Elokai, Netzur.

R' Frand utilized a Mashal of a diamond which has fallen in mud. It is filthy, but one only needs to wash it off and then it will be beautiful. The mud is sin and the diamond is your Neshama. The process of Teshuva is washing off the Neshama. R' Frand said that on Yom Kippur we enter that Kodesh Kodashim and wash off the mud of sin. When we evaluate our acts at that moment, we realize that our sins don't define us.

R' Frand quoted the Pasuk in Tehillim 32:1  אַשְׁרֵ֥י נְֽשׂוּי־פֶּ֗שַׁע כְּס֣וּי חֲטָאָֽה - praiseworthy is one whose sin is forgiven. R' Frand said that the word  נְֽשׂוּי means above - a person who is above his sin. When we say the Al Cheit, we need to realize that we are better than this and we are not rolling in the mud. We are better than that.

R' Frand quoted R' Yosef Lev Bluch (sp?) from Telshe Yeshiva who explains that if one has erred, as long as he realizes that he is above those mistakes and is better than that, he can jettison his sins. Indeed the Rambam writes that the essence of Teshuva is to abandon his sins and put them aside from his mind and say - I will not do this again. If he does, the Yodeah Taalumos will know that he won't do this again. Some translate this as saying that Hashem will say - this person will not sin again in the future. But if that is standard, we will not be capable of reaching it as we certainly will sin in the future.  But Taalumos does not mean the future, its the secrets. Hashem knows your secrets - that you are sincere and do not want to sin again.

However, there is a prerequisite for Teshuva. The Torah states in Devarim 30:1 - וְהָיָה֩ כִֽי־יָבֹ֨אוּ עָלֶ֜יךָ כׇּל־הַדְּבָרִ֣ים הָאֵ֗לֶּה הַבְּרָכָה֙ וְהַקְּלָלָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר נָתַ֖תִּי לְפָנֶ֑יךָ וַהֲשֵׁבֹתָ֙ אֶל־לְבָבֶ֔ךָ . Eventually when a person experiences these things, he will do Teshuva. But the Seforno says - examine your life and see what is true and what is false and where am I - are there contradictions in my life? Once you can distinguish truth from false, we can do Teshuva.

But this is only if we don't wear masks - as we need to honest in our review of our actions. Only after confronting and dismantling our contradictions can we do Teshuva as Hashem's signet ring is Emes - Truth and we must be honest.

I hope to complete the summary of the Derasha on Motzei Shabbos, IYH.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!